Hi, On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 07:29:23PM +0000, Simon Wilkinson wrote: > There's a couple of problems. Some new upstream kernel releases > contain changes which break OpenAFS - these changes are some times > backported into "earlier" Fedora releases, so a lack of change in > kernel version doesn't always indicate a lack of API changes. When > this happens, new deltas tend to make into into OpenAFS CVS pretty > rapidly. Support for these as RPMs (for both the official OpenAFS > RPMS, and the atrpms ones), then requires either a new OpenAFS > release, or someone pulling out the delta, adding it to the RPM, and > testing it. This all takes time, and so can cause these changes to > lag behind the availability of new kernel RPMs.
Sounds like a good angle to find some common momentum and share some work :) > > However, using openafs-client from atrpms it seems to be pretty > > good with f8. At least at work.. > > The drawback to the atrpms rpms is that they're using the FHS style > paths. Why is that a drawback (the question is sincere). While perhaps long time users will need to rethink the paths they have to do so anyway on a Linux system compared to AIX, Solaris etc. And any openafs acceptance into any Linux distribution has better cards to be FHS than not. If openafs every makes it into RHEL/Fedora proper it will have to be FHS style. But let's make everybody happy: How about an rpmbuild time switch to allow anyone to rebuild with their favourite path style. I would still want to see FHS being the default, but transarc style is just a one-line change in the rpmbuild specfile. Just looking for synergy and a common openafs rpm design. Which could very well be more than Fedora/RHEL (but I admit not being a SuSE or Mandriva expert, so someone would have to step in to aid in this part). :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpOOxrqeibdc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
